Leigh

Shame on you man.

Homosexuals, who contribute greatly to all walks of society, have done it tough long enough.

You would have more credibility by criticising the millions of slimebag "heterosexual" paedophiles who often, under the respectability of marriage, prey on little children.

The tendency is for the laws of the land to follow some way behind the common accepted norms of society. The relationship law is simply reflecting the defacto situation.

With more children being born out of wedlock than in, the status of marriage (man, woman, children) being the accepted family model is crumbling. The protests by the religious right is merely a rear guard action that can slow but not stop the change.

This registry or that, its all the same thing. State sanctioning of a relationship. Its the stuff of insecurity. Who needs it. Just be together and let that speak for itself. All the legal rights stuff is complete nonsense as you can make anyone you like a legal beneficiary of your possessions.

l also think the whole thing is clutching at disappearing straws. Marriage rate has halved and divorce rate has doubled in the last 2-3 decades, the genie is outta the bottle and its not going back in.

And people still get together, have kids, live life. Who knew.

The marriage contract was a deal made with the devil. It used to BOND people to each other, in a once upon a time very lop sided fashion. The idea of a contract that creates legalised human bondage is no longer compatible with recent cultural trends.

Thus was introduced no-fault divorce, to restore some semblence of humanity and expose the marriage contract for what it always was. Since the introduction of no-fault divorce, marriage has become purely SYMBOLIC, faiytale-like, romantic, imagined harking back to 'simpler times.' The contract itself has no teeth and does not conform to the workings nor intent of contract law, which is to bind participants to terms of conduct, with proscribed or court mediated penalties in the event of default. This sort of legal modus of agreed performance and remedy for default is utterly irreconcilable to the independent existence of another human being.

If you want that sort of thing you go for pre-nups or cohab agreements, which are mainly limited to division of assets. Its not possible to overide the provisions of family law. Though parties can agree to some wacky conditions, like maximum allowable weight gain and monetary penalties for infidelity. lm not sure how long the law will allow this way of implied behavioural bondage/compliance of another human being. As long as insecurity persists l guess.

Its dog-eat-dog, screw-thy-neighbour, l-me-mine ethos these days. Those who can create an escape from that nonsense in a loving and secure relationship/family, have my admiration.

You dont need the long arm of the law to make it so. In fact, inviting the state into a private intimate relationship sort of destroys the very intimacy and sanctuary of the idea.

Trade 215. If only life was simple as you have put it.

Do you have a pre marital agreement with your partner?

Are your mutual assets safe from others right to make claim on your assets?

Is your home safe from the same claim?

You will be amazed at the incidents same couples have to live with.

Should you or your partner be taken ill and hospitalised,either of you will have the right to be in attendence and be consulted on their treatment. Same sex couples can be denied that right.

Should you or your partner die, the surving partner will have rights to the funeral arrangements. Same sex couples do not have that right, and it is not uncommon that the partner of the deceased life partner,will be denied to attend the funeral.

Did you and your partner have to pay a lawyer, to cement your relationship and safeguard your mutual personal interests and assets?

If so, it aint much of a relationship!

So why should same sex couples, who just want to be together, need a legal stranger to secure their being, you dont!

I don't have a problem with the register at all. I think it's great if it can be used in any legal sense as a recognition of an interdependent relationship. It's a step in the right direction.